Laserfiche WebLink
involved. People mentioned that recreation flows should not be set in stone. Recreation is an <br />industry that needs water like mining and other industries in Colorado. It is a little harder in <br />terms of river flows where the market and state water law have not allowed recreationalists to <br />get water for those uses. If recreation remains a large part of the Colorado economy then we <br />need to preserve it and not let it go away because we can't get water rights. The bottom line is <br />that institutions need to be addressed. <br />H. S'heNman: What are the institutions and what changes are necessary? <br />M. K~assen: The prior appropriation system now is not designed for sharing and regionalization. <br />Someone mentioned southern Nevada as an option with the SNWA's pooling of water rights. <br />This would require current entities to give up senior water rights. CWCB has been having <br />this conversation in the context of its proposed Policy 18, which would change state law to <br />allow CWCB to own more than instream water rights. Part of Policy 18 is to let the state buy <br />water rights. If you want to have a state water project, that is fiindamentally different than <br />what we have now. There's a chasm between the land use planning and water planning <br />systems but people in the state don't like zoning. Looking at the vision statements there <br />would need to be more implementation of planning whether preserving agriculture or <br />creating urban centers. <br />T. W. Dickinson: Agrees with Melinda regarding the institutional issues. Agrees about the <br />challenges. The institutions protect us from the tyranny of the majority. <br />M. ShiNa~iin: The future 50 years ago is not what any of us had envisioned and the fiiture will be <br />very different than what we thii~lc today. It is not so much about what I want. Fundamentally <br />this debate/discussion is about who does choose the fiiture and how will we go about <br />choosing it? There is no such thing as 'status quo'. What institutions do we put in place that <br />make these choices? Historically that's been a local vs. state decision. Water supply is a 'tail <br />on the dog'. Demand is from growth, jobs, etc. We have not tried to capture any of this at the <br />state level. Since the'70s we have had laws that say local governments made the decision. <br />This has led to large-scale growth through horizontal subdivisions. Is that the future we want <br />and who decides? If we continue to do business and let the decisions be made by who has <br />made them in the past then there is not state planning. Prior appropriation has worked well in <br />the past. Agree with Marc but agree that we are in a transition zone where we had enough - <br />get it, develop it, and use it. Now we are reallocating what we have among competing uses. <br />What procedures, processes, institutions do we allow those decisions be made. <br />D. Scott: Background is economics. In venture capital world we played devils advocate. If water <br />is a property right then let's condenul some water rights and make people buy it back. We are <br />on water welfare. We are looking at some fairly significant inflation figures as we move <br />forward. Anything that government touches has higher inflation. South Metro highly <br />inefficient. Water authorities need to be more efficient and need to have less competition <br />between entities. Reduce competition in the market to allow water to flow more freely. <br />E. Wilkinson: In the hustory of Colorado water has not been a limiting force (agree with Marc) <br />and hasn't been considered a limiting factor until recently. They plan for everything else and <br />